SENATE BILL: The Bicameral Birthing Amendment of 2014 (sent to the Regions?)

[TNF]

Parties present a list of candidates for consideration. People vote directly for the party, and the seats are allocated proportionally to candidates in order of ranking on the list. For example, let's say the Labor Party had the following list:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Labor Party got 30% of the vote, the first 2 persons on this list would be elected; and so on and so on.

[Adam Griffin]

This is also what I prefer.

[Barnes]

If anyone would like to experiment with closed-list PR, here is a nifty calculator:

http://paul-lockett.co.uk/closedlist.html

(This assumes that a party runs a full slate of candidates.)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I support open-list PR. I would not support a closed list PR, which I believe would be detrimental to small parties and independents.

[TNF]

I support open-list PR. I would not support a closed list PR, which I believe would be detrimental to small parties and independents.

Independents can run on an independent list. Small parties should have no problem in closed-list PR. If they can't get the percentage needed to enter the Senate, so what? That's an indication to broaden their electoral appeal.

[Simfan34]

How would this "independent" list be determined? How would parties determine their lists, anyways? Primaries, I assume?

[Poirot]

Independents can run on an independent list. Small parties should have no problem in closed-list PR. If they can't get the percentage needed to enter the Senate, so what? That's an indication to broaden their electoral appeal.

All independent candidates are on the same list? If Batman and TheJoker are two independents on that list. If I support Batman but not TheJoker. In closed list, the one in first is the one that matters. If it's TheJoker I vote for another list I guess. How can independents decide who is first if they are not working together.

If there is open list (ranking people among a list) I could vote for Batman directly but end up electing TheJoker because TheJoker received one more vote than Batman within the list and there are only enough votes to elect one among the list. It's like russian roulette voting.

Do peole foresee big parties break into smaller groups of about the number of voters needed 
to elect a candidate.
     

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Well, I'm lost on where this is going now.

[Talleyrand]

You can have both closed list and open list, as long as you make the latter a potential option for voters. Simply ask voters to base their ballot off of one method or the other.

[Adam Griffin]

I support open-list PR. I would not support a closed list PR, which I believe would be detrimental to small parties and independents.

I meant to respond to this a couple of days ago, but I had an argument that I think was persuasive in outlining a disadvantage in representation that open-list for these types of parties provide, but of course it escapes me as of now.

I'd be OK with providing an open-list alternative for unaffiliated members, so long as the number of seats they receive is pegged to the same standard as anyone else. As far as small parties are concerned, however, there really is no distinction in the law. A "major party" is a major party, and therefore no special exceptions should be made. In many cases, the smaller parties aren't as small as they appear on paper due to a higher percentage - if not 100% in some instances - of their members voting in elections. Let's look at the last election:

D-R & TPP: 14% of population, 18% of voters
LAB & FED: 57% of population, 56% of voters
OTHERS: 29% of population, 26% of voters

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You are saying there is a reason that open list might hurt indies and third parties instead of help them?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is certainly grinding along at a snail's pace I see.

[Adam Griffin]

You are saying there is a reason that open list might hurt indies and third parties instead of help them?

I should sit back down and think about what I had some nights ago before I forgot.

In the case of a House with 11 members, though: yes, I could see it making a difference. If the independent/other caucus were a thing and you had a closed list, then a united front might produce 2 or 3 representatives, whereas a open list system would encourage each faction to split their votes, leaving them in the same circumstance with only 1 or 2. A closed list system for them could be produced with a caucus-wide vote, allowing most likely for a left-leaning member and a right-leaning member to be in the top 2. With this, a united front would keep things balanced within the caucus.

Precisely due to what shua mentioned, allowing each faction to split their votes along ideology or a specific party could mean that no faction actually generates enough support to elect a representative. If the major parties have closed list systems, then it's going to become a lot less prevalent for independents and smaller parties to pull the votes of major party voters when they're having to cast a ballot for a different party, rather than an individual from a different party. If the big parties go with closed list, the others are going to be at a disadvantage if they do not.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You are saying there is a reason that open list might hurt indies and third parties instead of help them?

I should sit back down and think about what I had some nights ago before I forgot.

In the case of a House with 11 members, though: yes, I could see it making a difference. If the independent/other caucus were a thing and you had a closed list, then a united front might produce 2 or 3 representatives, whereas a open list system would encourage each faction to split their votes, leaving them in the same circumstance with only 1 or 2. A closed list system for them could be produced with a caucus-wide vote, allowing most likely for a left-leaning member and a right-leaning member to be in the top 2. With this, a united front would keep things balanced within the caucus.

Precisely due to what shua mentioned, allowing each faction to split their votes along ideology or a specific party could mean that no faction actually generates enough support to elect a representative. If the major parties have closed list systems, then it's going to become a lot less prevalent for independents and smaller parties to pull the votes of major party voters when they're having to cast a ballot for a different party, rather than an individual from a different party. If the big parties go with closed list, the others are going to be at a disadvantage if they do not.

I don't understand your second paragraph.

Regardless of whether it is closed or open, all the votes for a list go to one or another candidate on the list, correct?  If I first preference candidate X on list A, the vote still goes to list A even if candidate X does not end up himself winning - at least that is my understanding.

[Adam Griffin]

You are saying there is a reason that open list might hurt indies and third parties instead of help them?

I should sit back down and think about what I had some nights ago before I forgot.

In the case of a House with 11 members, though: yes, I could see it making a difference. If the independent/other caucus were a thing and you had a closed list, then a united front might produce 2 or 3 representatives, whereas a open list system would encourage each faction to split their votes, leaving them in the same circumstance with only 1 or 2. A closed list system for them could be produced with a caucus-wide vote, allowing most likely for a left-leaning member and a right-leaning member to be in the top 2. With this, a united front would keep things balanced within the caucus.

Precisely due to what shua mentioned, allowing each faction to split their votes along ideology or a specific party could mean that no faction actually generates enough support to elect a representative. If the major parties have closed list systems, then it's going to become a lot less prevalent for independents and smaller parties to pull the votes of major party voters when they're having to cast a ballot for a different party, rather than an individual from a different party. If the big parties go with closed list, the others are going to be at a disadvantage if they do not.

I don't understand your second paragraph.

Regardless of whether it is closed or open, all the votes for a list go to one or another candidate on the list, correct?  If I first preference candidate X on list A, the vote still goes to list A even if candidate X does not end up himself winning - at least that is my understanding.

The very first part of the second paragraph simply was referencing how I believed disenfranchisement would still occur in an open-list system for independents/minor parties when major parties would be using closed-list. Fundamentally, I don't think it's fair to have PLPR for the major parties and allow individual candidates to run on their own if they are unaffiliated or with minor parties. There are severe potential drawbacks for each group. There are several variations of open and closed-list PR, so it's a bit hard to argue the specifics without knowing which ones will be used.

I was coming at it from the angle of closed-list (for major parties; as in closed-list variation of party-list proportional representation) being ordered by the party or caucus in whatever way it sees fit, using the strictest interpretation. That means that voters wouldn't be first preferencing a candidate; they'd be first preferencing a party or group. Whichever candidate is organized at the top of the list by the party or caucus is the first one elected once enough votes are received for that party. If enough votes are cast for that party or group, then additional members can be elected in the order they are on the list. The concepts of quota still exists virtually unchanged; you'd have a quota to win 1 seat, 2 seats, 3 seats and so forth.

As far as open-list goes, I was considering essentially what we have now. You can go to Wikipedia and see all of the current open-list variations; the one that best fits what we have now and what I was comparing against the closed-list system is the "Relatively closed list" method.

If we use these two variations as the options with the examples above - one for minor parties/independents and the other for major parties - I could see minor parties and independents as a whole actually being screwed out of seats if they were open-list. In a system where the majority would belong to a major party and would most likely vote for a party instead of a candidate, it's going to be harder to convince people to vote for your caucus or unaffiliated coalition when they're not a member, and knowing that there's no flow to their party's candidates. People like X who ran as independents at one point and won would have much more difficulty getting elected in my opinion.

The independent bloc, for instance, has an assortment of left and right leaning members. I think a minor party/independent coalition could elect at least 2 out of 11 members to a potential House if they were united. However, if Earth Liberation Front is voting for its guys, Fratelli d'Atlasia is voting for its guys, right-leaning independents vote for like-minded individuals and left-leaning independents do the same, it's possible that none of their individual candidates reach quota. Which I mean, hey...is great for people like me.

But ultimately, this larger group could have a primary/caucus, determine which candidate is ranked #1 and which is ranked #2, etc based on voting, and probably wind up electing at least 2 in every election. Based on the breakdown, it'd be very likely that the top 2 vote-getters in a primary or caucus would be from opposite hemispheres, providing somewhat balanced representation for the unaffiliated groups.

tl;dr: That was a lot and I hope I didn't contradict myself in the process. I think everyone needs to use a closed-list system, but the process of creating the lists for each party/caucus can vary. At the end of the day, though, voting for a party/movement would need to be universal and could actually strengthen the independent/smaller factions instead of weakening them as you suggsted

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

My understanding of an open-list is that an individual candidate would not need to reach a quota to be elected if they are the first in a list that reaches the quota or a list that otherwise earns a seat.  There's no reason multiple small parties and independents couldn't band together in an open-list system, and the possibility of people voting for such a list may be more attractive when a voter can make a preference between the diverse candidates on a list.

[Adam Griffin]

My understanding of an open-list is that an individual candidate would not need to reach a quota to be elected if they are the first in a list that reaches the quota or a list that otherwise earns a seat.  There's no reason multiple small parties and independents couldn't band together in an open-list system, and the possibility of people voting for such a list may be more attractive when a voter can make a preference between the diverse candidates on a list.

I'm pretty sure that's what I'm saying, more or less? My initial understanding was that you were advocating a form of open-list for indies and smaller parties in the sense of what we have now, as in people continue to vote for individual candidates (what is referred to on Wikipedia as the "most open list"), while the major parties' candidates are elected via PLPR.

I'm advocating that all minor parties and independents have one list, the order of which be determined by a primary or caucus. And yes, that's precisely what would make it more attractive to them: it would likely have someone from the left and right as the top two, and I see no reason why said coalition couldn't win 2 of those seats.

So in essence, this is what I'm advocating the ballot look like. The lists of candidates could either be included below each choice as sub-text, or hyperlinked to:

Ballot:

[  ] AAPRJD
[  ] Democratic-Republican
[  ] Federalist
[  ] Labor
[  ] The People's Party
[  ] Unaffiliated

or...

Ballot:

[  ] AAPRJD

• Candidate 1
• Candidate 2
• Candidate 3
• Candidate 4
• Candidate 5

[  ] Democratic-Republican

• Candidate 1
• Candidate 2
• Candidate 3
• Candidate 4
• Candidate 5

[  ] Federalist

• Candidate 1
• Candidate 2
• Candidate 3
• Candidate 4
• Candidate 5

[  ] Labor

• Candidate 1
• Candidate 2
• Candidate 3
• Candidate 4
• Candidate 5

[  ] The People's Party

• Candidate 1
• Candidate 2
• Candidate 3
• Candidate 4
• Candidate 5

[  ] Unaffiliated

• Candidate 1
• Candidate 2
• Candidate 3
• Candidate 4
• Candidate 5

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From a philosophical standpoint, the lower chamber should represent the people. That means it necessarily has to reflect a majoritarian view but on the flip side it also must give a chance for all to be heard. To some extent PR does that well, to others I Am not so sure and this closed list versus open list is a variable I am not only unsure about with regards to such, but I am also unfamiliar with how they function.

Putting indies on a closed list presumes that the Indies primary goal though is political (as it tactical politics) as opposed to ideological or philosophical. I am I wrong about that? A philosophical indy could end up voting for someone with the complete opposite views.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Sorry for not disappearing, but until some of these bills leave the floor that I am involved in, I have to continue to chime in sadly for all of you..

With that said, I'm sad to see this bill going in the direction its going in, and I fear that this will stand even less of a chance of actually passing a vote than my original plan did. I fear a party list election will be less exciting than elections are now.

How does this handle candidates that appeal to other people in different parties that would ordinarily not support a person from that party? As someone who relies on crossover appeal to win elections and not a party base, because most party bases hate me, how would that work if I were running as a TPPer or Federalist? Would I just be out of luck? Would this bill end the notion of stronger candidates and just make this about a game where you vote for X party and that's the only decision you make?  

[President Tyrion]

Perhaps Duke is right....

Maybe Party List just doesn't have the popular appeal...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sure, we want people to vote for individuals and not just parties. This is one reason why I would support an open over a closed list, but either way, having a party list for the House but not in the Senate seems to me like a good option.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm ok with balance, but I just think party lists in general are a bad idea.
What is an open party list exactly? Anything that entails simply voting for a party over a person sounds like a bad idea to me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sure, we want people to vote for individuals and not just parties. This is one reason why I would support an open over a closed list, but either way, having a party list for the House but not in the Senate seems to me like a good option.

Would party list even work for a regional Senate election? But yeah, like I referenced in the OSPR Amendment thread discussing a partisan Senate, a House is likewise a better place for PR the same way that would be to have a partisan administration. Whereas the Senate woudl I referred to before, be the more the cigar and brandy types that operates less on a partisan basis and more as a check on the popular and partisan excesses.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Sure, we want people to vote for individuals and not just parties. This is one reason why I would support an open over a closed list, but either way, having a party list for the House but not in the Senate seems to me like a good option.

Would party list even work for a regional Senate election? But yeah, like I referenced in the OSPR Amendment thread discussing a partisan Senate, a House is likewise a better place for PR the same way that would be to have a partisan administration. Whereas the Senate woudl I referred to before, be the more the cigar and brandy types that operates less on a partisan basis and more as a check on the popular and partisan excesses.

Yes, that was my intention with the House - to be more partisan.

I merely don't think party lists would create exciting elections. They have the potential to make them even more boring, because instead of voting for a candidate you may like, you just vote for a party, and for a game that's about elections, this would bore me to tears.

[Adam Griffin]

I'll catch up with a more detailed response later, but party-list for the House isn't the end of the world. We still have the Senate, the Presidency and all the regional offices. Also, I envision the House being a place for newer players and not for people like us...and when exactly have new players without a solid party base managed to break through and win even a regional seat? In other words, a n00b House election is still going to revolve around the parties by and large.